If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The same way any alternative works? Tradeoffs. GoG is "DRM Free" and almost guaranteed to run on your computer (outside of one or two games), but has a much smaller catalog and no community features. And so forth.

And how are GoG going about convincing big name publishers to let them sell brand new games without DRM? The newest AAA game they have is what, AssCreed 1 without counting the Witcher games because, well the same company owns both GoG and The Witcher.

Saying GoG is DRM Free although true is moot. They're DRM free because more of the games they sell are either from a time before DRM or are indie and the indie devs are happy to allow their games be DRM free.

The term applies, you don't get to redefine it just to suit your argument, sorry.

Okay, I guess you just don't get it.

Originally Posted by soldant

Except that you're heavily invested it in and most of your games are there, so dropping it isn't an option really.

Of course it's an option and a very real one at that, considering most publishers either treat the PC market as secondary, or have some sort of digital distribution platform of their own. And that's beyond the fact that someone like Amazon could drop some spare change and show up with a fully fledged DD service of their own at a moments notice.

But if you want some quick and tasty food (debatable I guess) you can go to either McDonalds or KFC. Despite them being different you end up with more or less the same thing. It's not the same with Steam or GoG, some experiences are exclusive to them.

But if you want some quick and tasty food (debatable I guess) you can go to either McDonalds or KFC. Despite them being different you end up with more or less the same thing. It's not the same with Steam or GoG, some experiences are exclusive to them.

You end up with "video game entertainment" which is broadly the same and competitive. A) logic is on the side of this and B) anti-competition law is as well. For a competitive environment to be established you don't need to gain an identical digital experience from both. Otherwise it would be strictly illegal for any shop to have exclusives.

They are competitors in the video game retail sector, they don't need to sell the same games to be so. Everyone move on.

Any trading standards body would disagree and as I thought the argument was about Steam having some evil monopoly... Which of course, ignoring GoG, they don't. You're welcome to go buy a Playstation, iPhone, Xbox etc.

So everyone's just going to go "Oh man screw Steam, we've got ServiceX now, let's stop using it!" just like that? People are already not interested in other services simply because they prefer the convenience of having everything under Steam. They actively want Steam to attain more titles so that it manages everything for them. You're underestimating how attached people are to the platform.

Originally Posted by Zephro

By this rational 2 food shops don't compete if they sell different kinds of food? So KFC and McDonalds aren't competitors?

Don't isolate pieces of quotes to change their meaning. I said that GoG and Steam only really compete in the indie games sector, since GoG covers old games and Steam (by and large) doesn't. Gundato was suggesting that GoG is a competitor to Steam but differentiates itself or offers a trade-off. I said that it doesn't really rate since GoG and Steam don't directly compete for the most part, since GoG sits in a niche.

Your analogy isn't accurate and doesn't reflect what I was saying. It might have been better to compare KFC to a small gourmet pizza shop. Yes, they both sell food and are broadly competitors, but they're catering to different markets (OM NOM NOM CHICKEN ROCKS vs Gourmet makes it sound sophisticated) so they're not directly competing.

Originally Posted by Zephro

and as I thought the argument was about Steam having some evil monopoly...

Seriously guys, are any of you actually reading my posts? Specifically the parts where I consistently deny that Valve are evil or have an actual monopoly? Or are you just going "What, Soldant raised an issue about the irony of GabeN pushing for Steam control when he bitched about MS and Win8's store? MAXIMUM ARMOUR ACTIVATED - TO VALVE'S DEFENCE!"

And where did that came from? I believe I clearly stated that Steam will continue to do well with the public as long as it maintains a catalogue of features people look for. There is literally no reason for people to ever switch away from Steam is if remains the best service on the market. And that's not a bad thing.

At the same time, if Steam goes south, there's plenty of opportunities for other companies to provide the same service. The reason why it hasn't happened so far is that Steam a) hasn't gone south and b) no one is even remotely close to providing that kind of quality service both to the end customers and the product suppliers.

Pretty much. If Steam suddenly becomes a bad thing, the void will be filled. As it stands, competitors are choosing to offer similar services, not the same service.

Using the fast food example: Steam is Taco Bell (I like Taco Hell). Most of their food is agreeable, and they have a few standout items (dorito tacos!). GoG is Del Taco. They have a MUCH smaller menu, but it is also of much higher quality. Both sell food. Hell, both sell "mexican" food. And both will probably send you to the toilet and make you wish you had never eaten there. But they target different aspects of the "mexican" food service industry.

Steam: Gundato
PSN: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

Seriously guys, are any of you actually reading my posts? Specifically the parts where I consistently deny that Valve are evil or have an actual monopoly?

Fill in the gaps with what you want to see and bam, you're consistently saying Valve are evil and have an actual monopoly!

Originally Posted by His Master's Voice

Of course it's an option and a very real one at that, considering most publishers either treat the PC market as secondary, or have some sort of digital distribution platform of their own. And that's beyond the fact that someone like Amazon could drop some spare change and show up with a fully fledged DD service of their own at a moments notice.

Many people become attached to a service. Apple have made it so easy and nice to be able to link all your iProducts together that if you ever buy a new iProduct you can turn it on and have it sync to an account and get all your apps and contacts and music on it right away. Other's find it hard to leave WoW for another MMO because of the time and money invested in the game already. They're both familiar to people, they know how to use them and they're convenient. Ask the older generation about moving bank and you're likely to be told it's not worth the hassle, that they like their bank or that they've used it for so long already that they don't see a point in change.

It's really not as easy to say "Oh, I'm just not going to use steam, I'm going to use this instead". Ok, you can do it, but then all those games you want that publishers keep making Steamworks games, say goodbye to legal copies of those. Which is something a lot of you seem to be overlooking.

I just want to point out that the "limited" definition you're refusing to accept is pretty much the standard universally accepted definition of the word.... definitions are limited for good reasons. Steam isn't close to being a monopoly because they're not the single supplier of the commodity, they don't control the market, they don't control the markets prices and there is plenty of competition. It's extremely successful but it's not 'nearly' a monopoly.

Don't isolate pieces of quotes to change their meaning. I said that GoG and Steam only really compete in the indie games sector, since GoG covers old games and Steam (by and large) doesn't. Gundato was suggesting that GoG is a competitor to Steam but differentiates itself or offers a trade-off. I said that it doesn't really rate since GoG and Steam don't directly compete for the most part, since GoG sits in a niche.

Your analogy isn't accurate and doesn't reflect what I was saying. It might have been better to compare KFC to a small gourmet pizza shop. Yes, they both sell food and are broadly competitors, but they're catering to different markets (OM NOM NOM CHICKEN ROCKS vs Gourmet makes it sound sophisticated) so they're not directly competing.

I didn't as I was quoting someone else quoting you. Anyhow yes they are direct competitors as far as the legal definition of a monopoly and so on goes. Which was my point. I would add that Xbox and PlayStation are also competitors as are Game and Amazon. Consumer choice isn't being damaged anywhere so it's all a big non issue. Though we can keep limiting and narrowing the definition over and over if need be.

I'm frankly baffled as to how the Steam limiting choice/monopoly/whatever argument happened again out of this story. If anything Valve are expanding choice to consumers by allowing them to play games on TVs as well... Again not aimed at you directly but the general direction of the thread.

Seriously guys, are any of you actually reading my posts? Specifically the parts where I consistently deny that Valve are evil or have an actual monopoly? Or are you just going "What, Soldant raised an issue about the irony of GabeN pushing for Steam control when he bitched about MS and Win8's store? MAXIMUM ARMOUR ACTIVATED - TO VALVE'S DEFENCE!"

That wasn't actually aimed at you and was a general remark, nor was what I said a defence of Valve.

Though as I said above this isn't an increase in Steam's control of anything. So the whole argument has started over nothing.

EDIT: Also the numerous reasons why this isn't like Win8 closing up at all. Not that they are ever likely to. But the relevance to a big screen box is tiny.